Decided on July 27,1971

STATE Respondents


- (1.)It is said that the Spencer & Co , Ltd., Madras prepared a medicinal compound by the name "Camphorated Opium Tincture" under a licence secured under the provisions of the Medicinal and Toilet Preparation Act of 1955 which is a Central Act, The petitioner has a medical stores at Amaravati in Guntur District. He purchased some quantities of tincture from the Spencer & Co., Ltd: Madras and transported the same to his godowns at AmaravatL At mid-night on 2-1-1971, respondent NOS. 2 to 4 raided his godowns and seized 1059 bottles of the tincture and also arrested the petitioner. Thereupon the present writ petition has been filed for declaring that the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act 1958 under which the above acts of raid and seizure have been made, do not apply to "Comphorated Opium Tincture" manufactured by the Spencer & Co , Ltd., Madras, and to issue a consequential writ of Mandamus directing the respondents to deliver to the petitioner the said '059 bottles of the tincture seized from him and restraining the respondents not to interfere with the right of the petitioner to deal in such tincture.
(2.)In the first place, Sri M. Chandrasekhara Rao, the learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Sees. 11 and 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Excise Act 1969 are ultra vires the powers of the State Legislature. If those two sections are unconstitutional and invalid, they cannot be enforced and, consequently the action taken by the respondents would be totally invalid and illegal. S. 11 of that Act purports to regulate transport of intoxicants and it says.
(3.)The Government may, by notification, prohibit the transport of an intoxicant or any kind of intoxicants from any area into any other area within the State except under a permit issued under section 12". Section 12 provides for the manner in which such permits should be issued. Item 8 of the State List in the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution empowers the State Legislatures to make laws in regard to
"Intoxicating Liquors, that is to say, the production, manufacture, possession, transport, purchase and sale of intoxicaing liquors"
. It is thus obvious that the State Legislature is empowered to legislate in regard to the transport of intoxicating liquors also. Therefore, it cannot he doubted that sections 11 and 12 of the said Act are clearly within the ambit of the State Legislature's power to legislate. This argument would, therefore, fail.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.